That's what I see also, USA would more than likely refuse to extend credit to the Entente and maintain it's neutrality rather than actually join the war.
Possible Additions To The Central Powers?
- Thread starter Gog (♀)
- Start date
That's what I see also, USA would more than likely refuse to extend credit to the Entente and maintain it's neutrality rather than actually join the war.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Didn't Italy have some kind of historical claim on Albania? I'd expect them to push pretty hard to annex the whole thing.
Italy has a claim on anything they think they want. For example, why do they have a claim on Dalmatia when the Italian population was hardly a minority? Or claims on like Crete and Greece and other idiocy?
I do love these well-substantiated statements.
For example
rolleyes do you know when the Italian-speaking population in Dalmatia ceased to be a majority?Are you familiar with the post-1850 Austrian cultural and ethnic policies in the western Balkans?
Do you know anything about the incidents of Spalato?
And what about the post-WW2 ethnic cleansing in Istria, Fiume and Dalmatia?
PS: once you have replied to these questions, we can talk about Corfu and Crete
I do love these well-substantiated statements.
For example
Are you familiar with the post-1850 Austrian cultural and ethnic policies in the western Balkans?
Do you know anything about the incidents of Spalato?
And what about the post-WW2 ethnic cleansing in Istria, Fiume and Dalmatia?
PS: once you have replied to these questions, we can talk about Corfu and Crete
Wasn't Corfu and Crete because Venice had owned them for a couple hundred years? I think there were many Catholics on the island as a result, if I'm not mistaken.
Nice try, but no cigar: the point is that there were no Italian claims in either island, much less in Greece.
Btw, there were no catholics there (not that it would have made such a big difference) and Venice held Crete and Corfu for 4 centuries.
Well, there was a small minority in the Ionian Island in 1800 when the English came but I guess that after the union with Greece many were assimilated(there was even an island with Italian or Venetian majority).
Anyway saying that Italy has no claims in these island is quite extreme, there were even if not stronger as the the Greek one.
I don´t think Crete had a Italian minority so here is more like a colonial expansion than "retake our land".
I thought they never had a majority, something like 33% in 1815 when Austria annexed it.For example
Last edited:
The island you mention is Zante (or Zakhyntos in Greek). There was obviously a significant number of Italians (or better Venetians) in the Ionic islands up to the end of the Serenissima, but they were never more than 10-15% of the total population and started to decrease during the Napoleonic period. The remaining population left the islands after the union to Greece (1864) and migrated either to Italy or to Smyrna (under the Ottomans they were protected by the regime of capitulations, while in Greece the capitulations had been abolished). The first constitution of the Ionic islands (1803) was actually bilingual (Italian and Greek).
IMHO, Italy might have an historical claim to the islands but the practical disappearance of the Italian minority made the point moot. Certainly these islands were never included in the "Irredenta" package, and IMHO it was not a wise claim to pursue.
It is more a matter of how one defines the borders of Dalmatia, I suppose. The Italian-speaking populations was concentrated in the coastal cities, while Slavic population was predominant in the interior. Culture, commerce and professions were certainly dominated by Italian speakers. All the higher schools were Italian ones. The first newspaper in Dalmatia was bi-lingual, but it actually meant that the articles were written in Italian and then translated in Serbo-croat. Until late 1860s, all the mayors were Italian speaking in the cities (and in Spalato the last Italian-speaking mayor, Baiamonti, was elected without interruption from 1860 to 1880 (when the crown dissolved the city council and "arranged" for new elections two years later).
Interestingly enough, the Serbo-croat spoken by Slavic inhabitants in Dalmatia included a very large number of Italian (or Venetian) words: practically everything that had to do with sea-faring, commerce, culture, professions, fishing and so on (which was not the case for the Serbo-croat spoken around Zaghreb). Anyway most of the Slavic speakers were also speaking Venetian dialect and/or Italian.
There is also the difficulty of correctly estimating the number of persons belonging to each group? It was somehow easier to identify the people by religion since the churches kept records; however both Italians and Croats were catholic, and mixed marriages were common (it was again a matter of religion and social status, not an ethnic one).
Under the Republic of Venice this was not an issue. Anyway people were mostly feeling a sense of belonging to a church or to a town, not to an ethnic group. The first stirrings of nationalism came later, and this was a problem for the Austrians. Slavic people were considered loyal, Italians (in particular starting with the 1840) were not. The imperial government incentivated Slavic migration to Dalmatia and after the war of 1866 made it an official policy: "His Majesty has expressed the precise order to oppose decisively influence of the Italian element still present in some Kronländer, and aim to Germanization or Slavicization - depending on the circumstances - the areas in question with all the energy and without any respect, through appropriate mandates of judges to politicians, educators and through the influence of the press in southern Tyrol , Dalmatia and the Adriatic Coast . » [quoted from Wikipedia]. Since the Catholic church was not friendly to the newly created kingdom of Italy (and census taking was in church) it is not surprising that the official number of Italian speakers (in the official definition of the KuK, which was the day-to-day language spoken at home) decreased.
Is it a good enough answer?
There's a good possibility that they would. Albania didn't join and they still very nearly did get split between various proposed combinations of Italian, Greek and Yugoslav claims.
Last edited:
but also an equal amount of british sympathies. plus joining the CP is suicidal for their colonies, the british were always looking for excuses to steal other countries colonies, and the japanese were eyeing the dutch indies too.
The old story about a kingdom without a King/admiral without sea access/allied to countries it has territorial claims on?
I guess it's pretty bizarre...but it still makes a certain amount of sense, as the close relationship with Germany allowed Hungary to partially fulfill territorial claims against all three of its neighbors.
OTL suggests Greece wouldn't be nearly as lucky with the Central Powers; after all, they were forced to surrender eastern Macedonia to Bulgaria while they were still neutral and ruled by a pro-German King. The possible territorial expansions into Albania and Serbia were small and unimpressive even on their own, and they'd barely be able to compensate for the potential losses to Bulgaria.
Not really, just have a quick Fall of France. Then they'll probobly jump in.
As for other Central Powers, maybe the South American Navel Arms Race keeps going and one of the ABC powers signs a treaty with Germany?
I think he may have been referring to Romania more than Greece. At least they had some claims against Russia.
Well, the public opinion is a big obstacle, as King Carol himself told the Austrian ambassador he has to respect it and thus can't fight alongside them. Unless - I presume - if a Russian collapse completely changes the game. And AFAIK Axis Hungary had no such problems since most people were eager to tear down Trianon regardless of what they thought about the Nazis.
I laughed far too much at this.
Well, the public opinion is a big obstacle, as King Carol himself told the Austrian ambassador he has to respect it and thus can't fight alongside them. Unless - I presume - if a Russian collapse completely changes the game. And AFAIK Axis Hungary had no such problems since most people were eager to tear down Trianon regardless of what they thought about the Nazis.
I laughed far too much at this.
, an outside chance I know, but not totally ASB.Well, we did discuss the possibility of a CP-aligned USA, which would require an 1890's POD at the absolute minimum. With similar leeway, we could probably get a Bulgaria that remains in the Russian orbit and that Romania might have claims against after alt-Balkan Wars go badly for them. That would presumably shift public opinion sufficiently that an alliance with Austria-Hungary against Bulgaria would be conceivable. A bit roundabout, but it would fulfill the challenge.
